Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 20STCV49469, Date: 2022-12-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV49469    Hearing Date: December 6, 2022    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Plaintiff Mkrtich Shaklian (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants City of Los Angeles (the “City”), County of Los Angeles (the “County”), and 918 Western Plaza, LLC for damages arising from Plaintiff’s trip and fall on a sidewalk.  The County has been dismissed from this action.  Trial is currently set for January 4, 2023. 

Defendant 918 Western Plaza, LLC (“Defendant”) now moves to continue the current trial date for six months.  No opposition to the motion has been received.    

Although continuances of trials are disfavored, each request for a continuance must be considered on its own merits.  (CRC Rule 3.1332(c).)  The Court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance.  (CRC Rule 3.1332(c).) The Court may look to the following factors in determining whether a trial continuance is warranted:  (1) proximity of the trial date; (2) whether there was any previous continuance of trial due to any party; (3) the length of the continuance requested; (4) the availability of alternative means to address the problem that gave rise to the motion; (5) the prejudice that parties or witnesses will suffer as a result of the continuance; and (6) whether trial counsel is engaged in another trial.  (See generally, CRC Rule 3.1332(d)(1)-(11).)  Additional factors for the Court to consider include: a party’s excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts; whether all parties have stipulated to a continuance; and any other fact or circumstance relevant to the fair determination of the motion or application.  (CRC Rule 3.1332(c), (d).)

Here, Defendant contends there is good cause to continue the current trial date because Defendant’s current defense counsel substituted into the action on October 3, 2022, after receiving this case from Defendant’s prior counsel due to that law firm’s dissolution.  Defendant asserts that its current counsel found that some written discovery had been completed, but the case file contained no depositions.  Defendant provides that the City’s person most knowledgeable and Plaintiff have not been deposed, that a liability expert has not been retained, and that a physical examination of Plaintiff has not been conducted.  Defendant contends the case is therefore not ready for trial.  Further, Defendant avers that it believes a summary judgment motion will likely succeed based on sidewalk control issues, but the time for filing a summary judgment motion has closed.  Defendant provides that the City has stipulated to the continuance, but no response was received from Plaintiff regarding agreeing to the continuance.  Defendant avers it will be prejudiced if the trial date is not continued.

While Defendant asserts that its new counsel substituted into the action on October 3, 2022, the Court’s records show that Defendant was represented by counsel since at least the time Defendant’s answer to the complaint was filed on February 17, 2022.  No explanation is given for why Defendant’s prior counsel could have not completed the discovery that Defendant now states is still outstanding.  Likewise, no explanation is given as to why Defendant could not have filed a motion for summary judgment prior to the deadline based on the current trial date.  Nonetheless, the factors relevant to determining whether the trial should be continued weigh in favor of a brief continuance.  Defendant is making this motion approximately one month before trial, as opposed to waiting until the eve of trial, and there has been only one prior trial continuance.  Further, no party opposes the motion, and there are no alternative means identified to address the issues raised by Defendant, including those concerning Defendant’s ability to file a motion for summary judgment.  Moreover, no party identifies any prejudice they will suffer as a result of a continuance.  However, the parties should expect no further continuances.  They should plan all discovery and motion practice accordingly.   

Defendant’s motion to continue trial is granted.  The January 4, 2023 trial date is continued to ______________ at 8:30 a.m. in Department 31 of the Spring Street Courthouse.  The December 19, 2022 Final Status Conference is continued to _______________ at 10:00 a.m. in Department 31.  All discovery and expert cutoff dates are to be based on the new trial date. 

Moving Defendant is ordered to give notice. 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

• Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement.
• If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the court at sscdept31@lacourt.org with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.  The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.  
• Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.  You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.  
• If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave. 

Dated this 6^th day of December 2022